Is Mordecai a Jewish Courtroom Hero?

 
By: Felipe Diez III

"After these things King Ahasuerus promoted Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him and set his seat above all the officials who were with him. And all the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate bowed down and did obeisance to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai did not bow down or do obeisance. Then the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate said to Mordecai, “Why do you disobey the king’s command?” When they spoke to him day after day and he would not listen to them, they told Haman, in order to see whether Mordecai’s words would avail; for he had told them that he was a Jew. When Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow down or do obeisance to him, Haman was infuriated. But he thought it beneath him to lay hands on Mordecai alone. So, having been told who Mordecai’s people were, Haman plotted to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus." (Esther 3:1-6)

           The pericope encompassing Esther 3:1-6 presents the reader with a dramatic course of events which results in the writing up of a legal edict to exterminate the exiled Jews. The actions of the protagonist Mordecai, to many, are those of a faithful Jew refusing to capitulate to the whims of a debauched pagan king and a corrupt government, yet this defiance is not without consequence, for the lives of Mordecai’s countrymen hang in the balance. In this section of the book of Esther, was Mordecai a positive stereotype of a righteous Jew who, like Daniel, refused to taint his “Jewish-ness” and stand firm on his convictions in the face of Yahweh? Or were there other factors and motives involved that served to diminish the heroic appeal of Mordecai’s actions? This essay will comprise a topical exegesis of the passages mentioned while exploring the issue of Jewish worldview as regards the defiance of gentiles. I will not take the decisive or comprehensive position that there is enough solid evidence to classify this pericope (or Esther, for that matter) as legitimate “court heroism.” I aim to show that character flaws and ulterior motives considered, Mordecai possibly fits the profile (although not firmly) of a righteous Jew who did what he could with the resources he had to benefit his people. The impact of Mordecai’s actions played a part in Haman’s decision in verse 6. The impulse to influence the creation of the edict was, in my view, more due to the author’s use of humor to paint Haman (descendant of Amalekites) as a prideful impulsive man than as a calculated enemy of Jews.

            The first verse gives us an important clue. The (Haman) appointed as the king’s main official, was an Agagite, a long-time enemy of the Jews. Like the enmity between Jerusalem and the Edomites, the Agagites proved to be stubborn foes, and the author of Esther seems to have deliberately given this information away as an important part of Haman that would influence his impulsive move to attempt to exterminate the Jews. At any rate, all the officials paid homage “obeisance” to Haman minus Mordecai. As a result, Haman’s rage at Mordecai’s “blasphemous” act causes him to retaliate in a grossly inflated manner. Before this, we note that Ahasuerus[1], much like Nebuchadnezzar[2], commanded this homage, and the officials who question Mordecai’s risky yet bold decision understandably ask him to reconsider and bow down as everyone else had done. This implicit insistence was to no avail, and Mordecai stood as alone Jew in a foreign gentile court. Surely Haman was no divine statue and Ahasuerus was not nearly as fearsome and calculated as Nebuchadnezzar, but the amount of pressure placed on Mordecai was still cumbersome. The book of Daniel records that the king gave an opportunity for the three Jews to repent and kneel, yet they stood. Although the officials’ questioning in Esther 3:3 is not nearly univocal to the occurrences in Daniel, there is a reaction of awe anyhow.  But in the next verse we see an extended questioning of Mordecai which revealed his hidden identity.[3] We may conclude that the reason for Haman’s eruption in verse 4 was due to pride, as was typical for any gentile king to possess greatly. The homage due to Haman was not full, and the normal course of action to take would have been to punish Mordecai and avenge the perceived wrongdoing. However, Haman decides to destroy all the Jews. Given the author of Esther’s desire to paint the gentile rulers as incoherent exaggerators in the most tragic yet comical sense, we may question whether Haman was simply an overly vindictive madman unlike Nebuchadnezzar, who only attempted to punish the Jewish offenders and not the whole ethnicity.

            Other than the Daniel narratives, there is another example to discuss, namely, that of Genesis 41:1-45 as it compares to Esther[4]. For one, it is Pharaoh who has sought out Joseph though in Esther we see an ambivalent king Ahasuerus who does not even know who Mordecai is nor seems to care. The final verses in the book of Esther do awkwardly record an amicable relationship between the vindicated Mordecai and Ahasuerus, yet this occurs hastily and is actually a very small segment tacked on to the end, almost to give the half-tragic comedy some gainful meaning. Pharaoh did prove to be an angry man to his servants, as Joseph observed (like Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus) but in a sense, there is a type of logic to his actions. He does not punish an imagined wrongdoing as in the case of Ahasuerus, who allows a lower official such as Haman to make decisions. There is an extended struggle toward Joseph’s vindication and relationship to Pharaoh, yet in Esther there is none of this. Mordecai, by either chance or providence, is made known to the ill-managed Persian imperial court. In such “wise courtier” conversations, Esther is usually either ignored or briefly mentioned, but in comparison to the archetypes discussed here, it seems to lack the classical epic flavor, according to many students of Esther. A. Arne and S. Thompson of the Finnish school of folklore scholarship have studied the “wise courtier” motif and have put together general criteria for these types of tales Concerning the Genesis 41 court narrative, Susan Niditch and Robert Doran write:

“Culturally nuanced motifs are once again found in the higher status role, played by the Egyptian Pharaoh, in the entourage of court advisors, who seem to be a constant in the near eastern view of what court is like, and in the nature of Joseph's reward…These specified motifs are at home in a near eastern audience.”[5]

Scholarly “Court Hero” Criteria

            Niditch and Doran have posited the following pattern to identify a wise courtier tale:

A person of lower status (a prisoner, foreigner, debtor, servant, youngest son are all possible nuances) (Mordecai and Esther as exiles) is called before a person of higher status (often a king or bishop or chief of some kind) (Ahasuerus and Haman) to answer difficult questions or to solve a problem requiring insight. (The problem may be posed on purpose to perplex or may be a genuine dilemma. (Haman is appointed). Often a threat of punishment exists for failure to answer. (Mordecai refuses to bow) (2) The person of high status poses the problem which no one seems capable of solving. (3) The person of lower status (who may in fact be a disguised substitute for the person expected by the questioner) does solve the problem (Mordecai supplies Esther). (4) The person of lower status is rewarded for answering (by being given half the kingdom, the daughter of the king, special clothing, a signet ring, or some other sign of a raise in status).(There is no reward for Mordecai until Chapters 9 and 10, but Esther becomes a leader and part of the salvation of her people.)[6]

In the aforementioned criteria, Daniel and Genesis are more apt to fit the mold. Unlike these, Esther seems to have been written for a different purpose and involves a great deal of comedy and intentional exaggeration. It remains to be seen whether or not, considering the variable of literary style, Mordecai’s courage is authentic.” Jon D. Levenson soberly states: 

            “Why Mordecai refuses to kneel before Haman is unknown…some have speculated that Haman claimed divine honors (as Nebuchadnezzar does in Judith 3:8), and thus Mordecai refused to bow out of the traditional Jewish resistance to idolatry. In support of this, one may cite the usage of the verb kara (“kneel”)…though the word need not imply homage, when it does the recipient is nearly always God…but if idolatry is the cause of Mordecai’s noncompliance, the text is strangely silent about this. In addition, it is difficult to see why the king commands that an underling be treated as a god when he himself is not…since verse 4 can be interpreted to mean that Mordecai’s Jewishness was the cause of his refusal to kneel and bow to Haman…some scholars have seen the issue as one of ethnicity”[7]

            Levenson supplies further clues as to this dilemma:

“The language with which the king’s courtiers are said to have inquired about Mordecai’s reason for not bowing to Haman is strikingly close to the language of only one other verse in the Hebrew Bible. This is the verse in which Potiphar’s wife is said to have persisted in her attempt to seduce Joseph…perhaps we should go further and infer that just as Joseph was motivated by a fear of betraying his master and sinning grievously against God (Gen. 39:8-9), so Mordecai is motivated by the desire to maintain his authenticity as a Jew – by refusing to accommodate an Amalekite, to engage in idolatry, or whatever.”[8]

Jewish Resistance to Idolatry or Ancient Feud?

            Bush agrees wholeheartedly with Levenson and states:

“The narrator gives no explicit motive for Mordecai refusing to do obeisance to Haman. The only reason we have is the fact that he is a Jew, which the narrator seems to take for granted [at first]…but, as many interpreters have noted, his refusal can hardly relate to his religious obligations, for Jews regularly did obeisance to kings (e.g.,1 Sam 24:8)…Paton attributes it simply to Mordecai’s arrogance. However, as Fox notes, this cannot have been the author’s attitude, for it is quite in opposition to his positive characterization of Mordecai throughout...that Haman claimed the status of divinity…is simply ad hoc speculation.”[9]

Two well-known scholars agree almost decisively that Mordecai’s refusal to bow down to Haman was not due to purely religious reasons but to an ancient feud. One wonders, however, based on OT prohibitions to unite with other cultures and the fact that Jews were the chosen people, if the religious dimension was not a token part of the ancient conflict. At any rate, if the conflict had religious undertones, this was most likely not the case in the Esther text given the evidence already provided. But is there any evidence to the contrary? John C. Whitcomb, in his commentary of Esther, provides a different account:  

“It was customary for Jews to bow before their kings (2 Samuel 4:14; 18:26; 1 Kgs 1:16). But when Persians bowed before their kings, they paid homage as to a divine being. The Spartans refused to bow before Xerxes for this reason (Herodotus, 7.136). Since his loyalty to Jehovah was the basis for his refusal to bow before Haman, he had to divulge his nationality at last. At the time, this must have seemed disastrous to Mordecai; but God ultimately brought greater blessing through it, for he delights not in silent witnesses (cf. 8:17)…Discovering that Mordecai’s refusal to  bow was based upon religious motives, Haman realized that nothing less than a nation-wide pogrom would finally solve the problem.”[10]

Whitcomb has brought extra-biblical data into his argument as well as content from other sectors. One of the weaknesses of his position is that Esther lacks any reference to Jehovah or the supernatural, so in order to adduce what he did, Whitcomb must presuppose that Esther his not only a purely historical account, but also that the writer believed in divine providence in all matters. These two issues must only receive passing mention, so this essay will rely on the chosen pericope for most of its conclusions. If we observe the text alone, Whitcomb’s analysis is seriously hindered, yet the evidence must still be taken into account. Barry G. Webb writes:

            “According to Herodotus, bowing to superiors was a normal part of Persian court etiquette rather than an act of worship (cf. Gen. 23:7; 1 Kings 1:16). Mordecai did not bow because “he was a Jew.” The text does not give any more reason for Mordecai’s refusal to bow, but given Haman’s ancestry and animosity to the Jews, Mordecai apparently felt he could not bow to him without compromising his identity as a Jew. It is also possible that Haman was claiming some kind of divine status and Mordecai refused to give him that kind of honor.”[11] 

In the above quote, Webb claims more epistemic humility and grants Haman’s “divine honor” theory as only a possibility not supported by any plain reading of the text, yet like Whitcomb he cites Herodotus. All four scholars in this essay so far have the strong inclination that the ancient feud played the key factor in Mordecai’s defiance. Walter Kaiser adds: “The Hebrew verbs in this passage usually describe the worship of God [v.4]. There were occasions when Hebrews bowed before kings of high officials without any violation of the prohibitions of false worship…as a Jew, Mordecai may not have been able to bring himself to show this sign of respect to one who was an ancestral enemy.”[12] Again, another scholar is not willing to give too much credit to the idolatry argument. One more scholar, Edwin Yamauchi, rejects this theory altogether and states: “Obedience to the second commandment (Ex.20:4-5) is not the issue in Mordecai’s refusal to bow down to Haman…only the long-standing enmity between Israel and Amalek accounts both for Mordecai’s refusal and for Haman’s intent to destroy all the Jews.”[13]

“Evidence” against Mordecai

            If Mordecai were to be indicted for not reaching the goal of a Jewish court hero, here is some evidence that would be provided against him. For one, he hid his ancestry and the author gives him a pagan name. In Aramaic, Marduku signifies “servant of Marduk.” At first glance, one may see this as a contradiction in terms, similar to Haman meaning something like “follower of Yahweh.” However, it was not uncommon for Jewish exiles to possess names in relation to the gods of the nations that captured or plundered them. It is understandable that for a Persian Jew, this acculturation would result in such a name. This need not mean that those who were named so were idolaters or less Jewish, although as in the case of Samaritans or Canaanites, Persian Jews (unless they were not of physically half-pagan blood) could be psychologically classified as possibly impure by a Jew living in Jerusalem. Esther does not tell us that Mordecai had pagan blood but only a pagan name. A reader of Esther who is trying to gain wisdom insight concerning courtroom practices may at first find it difficult to relate to “servant of Marduk” as a hero, but depending on the audience, Mordecai’s actions might erase any doubts in our minds. Why, then did he only give away his identity after some questioning by the officials? Was there something that he wished to hide? Perhaps he knew that the court might avenge itself by persecuting Jews? This is unlikely as the text does not specify anything of this sort, although Haman did retaliate and purposed to annihilate the Jews. Other than refusing to bow down, was there anything else that Mordecai did to merit inclusion into the “courtroom hero” criteria? He did, after all, supply Esther who saved her people, and was rewarded handsomely as Ahasuerus’s official in the last chapter. But Mordecai still pales in comparison to a Daniel and his compatriots, to a Ruth, to a Deborah, and to a Joseph. Readers may not find adequate inspiration in this pericope since no miracles or divine attributions are in view. Furthermore, Mordecai could even be charged with pure pride and even instigation and insubordination for having disrespected Haman and provoked him to anger. The Jews are now in grave danger.

Evaluation of Mordecai Based on Criteria

How does Mordecai fare in comparison to other characters? In the case of the three righteous Jews called to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol, there is a striking difference since although there was a history of exile to Babylon, there is little reason to believe that there was a selective personal animosity between the three Jews and the King of Babylon. Clearly, the three Jews were of solid character and the text evidence mentions the reason for their refusal to bow to the great idol. Moreover, they were miraculously saved from the flames. Nothing of this sort occurs in Esther. In the case of Joseph, there is also a miraculous occurrence in the form of dreams, and just like in Daniel, Joseph (in Genesis) has no personal animosity toward Pharaoh and displayed a righteous character, especially considering the suffering he experienced for having rejected Potiphar’s wife’s advances. Yahweh explicitly reserves Joseph to preserve a remnant for the Jews. However, there is no such set of achievements or luxuries for Mordecai or Esther and no mention of God to protect or reward them. At any rate, there is a like-ability to Mordecai’s character despite the hiddenness of his heritage. Whatever the reasons for this cloaking, they are revealed implicitly in the courtroom when the defiance happens and later on upheld during the questioning. Even if there is no hint of opposition to idolatry in Mordecai, we may still admire his risky resolve. After all, he was present at a foreign court with two officials who lacked wisdom in every area of their lives. Even though there might be “evidence” against Mordecai constituting a legitimate court hero, there are a few attributes that help his cause. He is a Jew of good reputation living in exile. Even if pride was a factor in his dismissal of the command to bow, Mordecai has honored the ancient “edict” to resist the Amalekites wherever they may be, and this defiance may serve as inspiration to Jews both ancient and contemporary. So there is a mold that Niditch and Doran have created and it seems as though Mordecai’s situation causes him to fit, although not as neatly, into its etchings. The non-prominent figure who faces a court situation and solves a problem, encountering resistance and then prevailing and securing a reward is a reality in the book of Esther, and the chosen pericope proves to contain a buildup to a climactic moment. Had Mordecai bowed down, as many Jews did for kings, even while avoiding the charge of idolatry, none of us would have faulted him – yet he acted as a zealot and as a result may be placed in courtroom hero history, though not at the apex.

Haman’s reaction is undoubtedly exaggerated, as is the custom for the author of Esther. But this strong reaction was necessary for the plot to have thickened unto the end result – victory for the Jewish people. Certain variables such as literary style, other portions of the book, extra-biblical accounts, and comedy would have made for a much longer treatment, so chapter 3:1-6 and some commentary and analysis sufficed. Levenson again offers some insight:

“No reason for Ahasuerus’s promotion of Haman in v.1 is given. Whatever it was, “[t]his verse sets up a sharp contrast between the unrewarded merit of Mordecai and Haman’s unmerited rewards. Mordecai saves the king’s life (2:21-23) but receives no recognition. Haman has, so far as we know, done nothing for the king, but receives the premiership nonetheless; along with the honor and recognition of everyone except Mordecai (v.2)…Haman’s rage at being slighted is something he shares with Ahasuerus (Esth. 3:5; 2:1). It is, as we have seen, typical of a biblical food and symptomatic of impending disaster.”[14]

Conclusion

            This essay attempted to show that even though there are some issues that might not convince many scholars and laypeople that Mordecai is an ideal candidate for the “court hero” as it relates to Jewish folkloric motif, that given scholarly criteria (Arne & Thompson), there is a likely case that Mordecai (and Esther, for that matter) could be placed in this “hall of fame.” The weight of evidence in scholarship demonstrated that Mordecai’s problem with Haman was a feudal and personal one, and the author of Esther aided in the heightened sense of drama in Mordecai’s heroic refusal to bow down to an unworthy Amalekite “thug” by painting the latter as an impulsive and barbaric buffoon. Even if all the odds were against Mordecai’s intentions, at least the reader can enjoy the fact that Mordecai stood up to an ancient and powerful enemy even if it was out of spite. But given the context, there was much more to the history than momentary spurious antagonism. It encompasses a centuries old feud that remained for a long time with major biblical repercussions. The final chapter of Esther, although somewhat awkward and triumphalistic, closes the lid on the thesis of this essay while Mordecai enjoys his reward of prosperity and righteous rule of his people.

Sources

Bush, Frederick W. Ruth, Esther. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 9. Word Books, Dallas, TX, 1996

Edwin Yamauchi. NIV Study Bible. Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, 2008

Kaiser, Walter. NKJV Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 2001

Levenson, Jon D. Esther: The Old Testament Library. Westminster John Knox press, 1997

Longman, Tremper. Old Testament Commentary Survey. Baker Academics, Ada, MI, 2007

Pfeiffer Charles F. and Harrison Everett. F. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1962

Susan Niditch and Robert Doran, “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach,” in Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977)

Unger, Merrill. Unger’s Commentary of the Old Testament. AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN, 2003

Walton, John. Matthews, Victor. Chavalas, Mark: The IVP Bible Background Commentary. IVP Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2000

Webb, Barry G. ESV Study Bible. Crossway Bibles, Wheaton, IL, 2008

Endnotes

---

[1] King Ahasuerus’s reckless behavior was a theme throughout Esther that has been explored by many scholars. This theme will not be treated in this essay due to space limitations. However, it is important to note that Ahasuerus’s choice of Haman (no doubt a derelict) may have been due to the king’s questionable decisions. The author of Esther’s intent was to portray the Persian law court as a total house of calamities.

[2] Daniel Ch.3 is a classic example of heroic Jewish resistance to commanded Gentile worship toward anything that is not Yahweh. In verse 13, “Furious with rage, Nebuchadnezzar summoned Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego,” the maddened king questions and summarily sentences the three faithful Jews.

[3] The point of this essay is not to compare and contrast every small detail of court heroism in Esther with that in Daniel, but a major difference between the “protagonists” is that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were open concerning their ethnicity while Mordecai (or shall we say “Bilshan”) masked his Hebrew name. To make things more difficult for the thesis of this essay, “Mordecai” resembles Marduk, the detestable pagan god.

[4] An important part of mentioning the differences between the Joseph and Pharaoh Narrative and the Esther tale has to do with my attempt at evaluating the possible arguments against Mordecai and Esther as being any kind of “wise courtiers.” Obviously in some aspects, Mordecai falls short of the ideal Jewish resister yet still fits the mold in my view and in the opinions of many scholars.

[5] Susan Niditch and Robert Doran, “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach,” in Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977): pp.186-187. The authors classify Esther as fitting their criterion.

[6] Susan Niditch and Robert Doran, “The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: A Formal Approach,” in Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977): p. 180. The pericope chosen for this paper is too narrow for a full-fledged analysis of Mordecai’s character. There are occurrences in the rest of Esther that would fit the criteria. These will receive only passing mention since they are beyond the scope of Esther 3:1-6. Parenthetical character insertions and their relationship to the criteria in bold and mine.

[7] Levenson, Jon D. Esther: The Old Testament Library. Westminster John Knox press, 1997, p. 67. Resistance to idolatry is not here ruled out although an unlikely factor. A very important variable is the fact that Esther does not mention God or “gods,’ so this lack of reference may provide a clue as to why the text is silent concerning the reason for Mordecai’s defiance. Ethnicity might be the first cause as Haman was a descendant of Amalekites.

[8] Ibid. p.68

[9] Bush, Frederick W. Ruth, Esther. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 9. Word Books, Dallas, TX, 1996, p. 379.  The names that the author uses to identify both Mordecai and Haman may have a role to play. Bush continues: “…the patronymics of these two protagonists, then, subtly indicate that both men are heirs to a long-standing and bitter tradition of ethnic enmity and antagonism. Indeed the manner in which Haman is identified in the book signals him to be the pre-eminent enemy of the Jews.” (p.384).  

[10] Pfeiffer Charles F. and Harrison Everett. F. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Moody Press, Chicago, IL, 1962, pp. 450 – 451 (Esther contributor John C. Whitcomb). This argument seems less textually-based.

[11] Webb, Barry G. ESV Study Bible. Crossway Bibles, Wheaton, IL, 2008, p.856

[12] Kaiser, Walter. NKJV Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 2001, p.761

[13] Edwin Yamauchi. NIV Study Bible. Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, 2008, p. 720

[14] Levenson, Jon D. Esther: The Old Testament Library. Westminster John Knox press, 1997, p. 67-69

Spurgeon Gives Us A Glimpse Into The Soul Of A Pastor

A minister fully equipped for his work will usually be a spirit by himself, above, beyond, and apart from others. The most loving of his people cannot enter into his peculiar thoughts, cares, and temptations. In the ranks, men walk shoulder to shoulder, with many comrades, but as the officer rises in rank, men of his standing are fewer in number. There are many soldiers, few captains, fewer colonels, but only one commander in chief. So in our churches, the man whom the Lord raises as a leader becomes, in the same degree in which he is a superior man, a solitary man. The mountaintops stand solemnly apart, and talk only with God as he visits their terrible solitudes. Men of God who rise above their fellows into nearer communion with heavenly things, in their weaker moments feel the lack of human sympathy. Like their Lord in Gethsemane, they look in vain for comfort to the disciples sleeping around them; they are shocked at the apathy of their little band of brethren, and return to their secret agony with all the heavier burden pressing upon them, because they have found their dearest companions slumbering. No one knows, but he who has endured it, the solitude of a soul which has outstripped its fellows in zeal for the Lord of hosts: it dares not reveal itself, lest men count it mad; it cannot conceal itself, for a fire burns within its bones: only before the Lord does it find rest. Our Lord’s sending out his disciples by two and two manifested that he knew what was in men; but for such a man as Paul, it seems to me that no helpmeet was found; Barnabas or Silas or Luke were hills too low to hold high converse with such a Himalayan summit as the apostle of the Gentiles. This loneliness, which if I mistake not is felt by many of my brethren, is a fertile source of depression; and our ministers’ fraternal meetings, and the cultivation of holy intercourse with kindred minds will, with God’s blessing, help us greatly to escape the snare.*

*Spurgeon, C. H. (1905-07-02). Lectures to My Students (pp. 162-163). Hendrickson Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Malcolm Watts On Worship

Worshiping with Reverence 

 When we have a right view of the divine sovereignty, we will approach God with appropriate reverence. Psalm 5:7 teaches the need for holy awe. David said, “But as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple.” Similarly, Psalm 89:7 tells us that “God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him.” So if a church believes in a sovereign God, its worship will be markedly different from the worship commonly found in contemporary Christian churches. There will be godly humility, mixed with an awe of the holy. People will rejoice with trembling. Moreover, a church with this faith will make sure that every element of its worship is prescribed in the Scriptures, for it will want God’s approval, not His disapproval. 

Submission to His Authority 

 The knowledge of a sovereign God will move us to submit to His authority and observe His commandments. It was said of Job first that he “feared God” and then that he “eschewed evil” (Job 1:1). Job’s profound sense of God’s sovereignty made him dread sin and choose the way of righteousness. David confessed, “I have set the LORD always before me” (Ps. 16:8). He constantly bore in mind that God observed him and witnessed his every action. This, more than anything else, influenced how he lived.

...“What is worship?” This is a question of great importance today, when so much confusion is evident among professing Christians. The Westminster Shorter Catechism declares in its first sentence that “man’s chief end is to glorify God,”[1] and God Himself says to us in the psalms, “Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me” (Ps. 50:23). How vital it is, then, for us to grasp this issue of worship and rightly fulfil the purpose for which God made us, preserved us, and redeemed us. There is surely no greater work on earth or in heaven than this. 

 Worship is the reverence and homage that we render to the Supreme Being, through means such as praise, prayer, the reading of Scripture, and the preaching of the Word of God. “Reformed worship” is worship that is strictly according to God’s written Word, which is “the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.” It includes everything authorized by Scripture, and it excludes everything not authorized by Scripture. Calvin stated the biblical and Reformed view of worship when he wrote this: “We are not to seek from men the doctrine of the true worship of God, for the Lord has faithfully and fully instructed us how he is to be worshiped.” 

The Object of Worship 

 God’s perfection entitles Him to the honor of our worship. In Isaiah 6:1–3, we read of Isaiah’s vision of the Lord enthroned on high in His temple. The seraphim were present with their faces covered, and they were admiring that glory which separates and distinguishes Him from all others. “Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” Men and women entertain similar thoughts, for they too are aware that no one can be brought into comparison with Jehovah. “There is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. Who would not fear thee, O King of nations?” (Jer. 10:6–7). Such infinite glory deserves some external expression of our inward veneration. Soul and body must unite in this service, for if the soul is not involved, it is mental atheism, and if the body is not involved, it is practical atheism. The Lord Jesus declared, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4:10). The apostle Paul delivered this exhortation to believers: “Glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:20). 

In worship, our intention should be to give, not to get. The Psalms teach that to “give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name” is one and the same as to “worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness” (Ps. 29:2).

 ...The Way of Worship Reformed theology declares that only God has the right to determine the true and proper mode of worship. He has clearly prescribed this in His Word. The law of worship is that only what God has prescribed in Scripture may be introduced into His worship, or, to put it in another form, what Scripture does not prescribe, it forbids. Today there is a great deal of confused thinking about worship. Some people think that we can adopt any mode of worship, provided that God has not expressly forbidden it in His Word. In practice, this allows for many human corruptions and abuses. Where in Scripture are we forbidden to use particular vestments? To bow toward the east? To make the sign of the cross? To read from the Apocrypha? To kneel at the Lord’s Table? It is clear that this principle is entirely unsatisfactory. It allows for practically anything in divine worship. However, the scriptural law of worship is not that we can do whatever is not forbidden, but rather that we can do only what is clearly prescribed. When this regulative principle is faithfully applied both outwardly and inwardly, the result will be the recovery of pure and spiritual worship. The Word of God clearly teaches this Reformed view of worship.

Biblical Teaching on Worship: The Old Testament 

 The moral law of God, summarized in the Ten Commandments, authoritatively states the rule that should govern worship. In the first commandment, God declares Himself to be the only one who should be worshiped. In the second, He requires that believers observe only those institutions that He has divinely appointed: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” (Ex. 20:4). As sovereign Lord, it is God’s prerogative to order His own worship, and He makes it clear that there is no place for the inventions of men (“Thou shalt not make unto thee”). In the Hebrew, that word we read translated as make means “constitute” or “appoint.” So in the second commandment, God is prohibiting human beings from devising or observing anything in worship which He has not instituted. It is as if God is saying, “I am the Lord God, and I alone order My worship. People are not at liberty to introduce their devices into worship without My command.”*

*Watts, Malcolm (2011-12-27). What Is a Reformed Church? (Kindle Locations 696-708, 788-811, 825-844). Reformation Heritage Books. Kindle Edition.

Christianity And Culture From An Non-Christian's Perspcetive

I get both heart broken and angered when I see leaders in Christianity rely on "communication experts," "stats, "polls" and other similar things to be more "effective" in preaching and growing a local church. It's rather interesting and sad that when I see leaders use this type of method, their churches tend to look more like the world rather than "a pillar and buttress of the truth."

One cannot do things better than God can. God works through the power of the Spirit in the preaching of His Word and administration of the sacraments. Worship services are to be conducted in light of who He is, as He's revealed Himself through His Word. Worship is to be done as God has prescribed and commanded; not in a manner popular to the culture.

When men need to rely on "experts" I wish they would at least consider experts like Alan Wolfe. A social scientist, and also an unbeliever, who seems to have a better understanding of Christianity and culture more than many Christians.

The following quotes are from Alan Wolfe:

Talk of Hell, damnation, and even sin has been replaced by a non-judgmental language of understanding and empathy. Gone are the arguments over doctrine and theology … More Americans than ever proclaim themselves born again in Christ, but the Lord to whom they turn rarely gets angry and frequently strengthens self-esteem. [As a result] the faithful in the United States are remarkably like everyone else.

 ...Generally speaking, preaching in evangelically oriented growth churches, however dynamic in delivery, has remarkably little actual content. Scripture is invariably cited but only as a launching pad to reinforce the message of salvation that Jesus can offer.

...Evangelicalism’s popularity is due as much to its populistic and democratic urges—its determination to find out exactly what believers want and offer it to them—as it is to certainties of the faith.

 ...But popularity means bowing to, rather than resisting, popular culture, and since American popular culture is one that puts more emphasis on feeling good than thinking right, these movements tend to be especially hostile to potentially divisive doctrinal controversy.

...This adherence to growth can have its frustrations; watching sermons reduced to PowerPoint presentations or listening to one easily forgettable praise song after another makes one long for an evangelical willing to stand up, Luther-like, and proclaim his opposition to the latest survey of evangelical taste.

*Cited in Gilley, G. E. (2006). This Little Church Stayed Home: A Faithful Church in Deceptive Times (55, 56). Darlington, England: Evangelical Press.

*Gilley took the quotes from Alan Wolfe's book The Transformation Of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith? 

Gary Gilley On The Church As Pillar And Buttress Of Truth

Nevertheless, since it is the biblical position, we are not surprised to find Paul informing us that "the church of the living God [is] the pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15b). Whatever else the church of God does, it must excel at undergirding and proclaiming the truth. I believe a local church can fail at many things, but it must not fail at holding forth the truth of the living God. To fail at this is to fail at the primary mission given to the church. The church is not free to create truth, to supplement truth, to alter truth, or to selectively obey truth. The church is "to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). The church is to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). The church is to "preach the word; be ready, in season, and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction" (2 Tim. 4:2). To not accept these commands as a sacred trust is to totally miss the most important reason for the church’s existence.

 ...At certain points in history the church has served as a rebuke to the secular mindset of society. At such times Christians have challenged and exposed the popular fads that ruled the day, revealing those fads for what they were, shallow and empty, mere "broken cisterns that can hold no water" (Jer. 2:13). Sadly, now is not one of those points in history. Rather, the Christian community at the present time appears to be in lock step with the world system. Whatever the world is selling Christians seem to be buying. They may perfume it a bit, hang some religious ornaments on it, and throw some scriptures into the mix, but when stripped to its essence evangelicals frequently find themselves mimicking the world’s philosophy.

 We find this true with regard to postmodernity. Rather than repel the forces leading this ungodly worldview, we have welcomed them into our camp, adapted their most appetizing features and structured our ministries according to their market research. What polls and surveys have to say seem to carry considerably more weight in today’s local church than what the apostle Paul had to say.

Culture has always influenced the church, but in a real sense the postmodern culture has engulfed the church—and in many cases defined the church. We see its fingerprints everywhere we turn.

 ...What is happening? Having discovered postmodernists’ disdain for truth, the postmodern church has determined that the lost will never be reached through the offer of authoritative truth. To claim to be in possession of absolutes is viewed suspiciously today, since it is a thinly disguised power grab, so we are better off not playing the "truth" card too openly. In order to reach the citizens of this age we must give them what they want. And what do they want? They want to have their felt-needs met and they want to have a religious experience. If we desire to attract people to Christ these days, we are told, we need to understand their mindset. The old gospel of redemption from sin, righteousness in Christ and a future in heaven with our Lord just doesn’t play well any more.

I have documented this mentality toward evangelism from primary sources in my book This Little Church Went to Market, so I will not repeat those things here. But read some of the observations by respected Christian leaders who see what has happened. D. A. Carson writes,

Weigh how many presentations of the gospel have been "eased" by portraying Jesus as the One who fixes marriages, ensures the American dream, cancels loneliness, gives us power, and generally makes us happy. He is portrayed that way primarily because in our efforts to make Jesus appear relevant we have cast the human dilemma in merely contemporary categories, taking our cues from the perceived needs of the day. But if we follow Scripture, and understand that the fundamental needs of the race are irrefragably tied to the Fall, we will follow the Bible as it sets out God’s gracious solution to that fundamental need; and then the gospel we preach will be less skewed by the contemporary agenda … If you begin with perceived needs, you will always distort the gospel. If you begin with the Bible’s definition of our need, relating perceived needs to that central grim reality, you are more likely to retain intact the gospel of God (emphasis in the original).

Douglas Groothuis laments, "Some Christians are hailing postmodernism as the trend that will make the church interesting and exciting to postmoderns. We are told that Christians must shift their emphasis from objective truth to communal experience, from rational argument to subjective appeal, from doctrinal orthodoxy to 'relevant' practices. I have reasoned throughout this book that this move is nothing less than fatal to Christian integrity and biblical witness. It is also illogical philosophically. We have something far better to offer."'*

*Gilley, G. E. (2006). This Little Church Stayed Home: A Faithful Church in Deceptive Times (16–17,38-40). Darlington, England: Evangelical Press.

Dr. Richard Barcellos On Eph. 1:7-10

The particular focus of this study aims to explain what Paul meant by saying "to unite all things in him" (ESV), "the summing up of all things in Christ" (NASB), and "gather together in one all things in Christ" (NKJV). It will argued that this refers to the recapitulation of all created things by our exalted redeemer in accordance with the design of the Father.

The Bible is ultimately about God getting glory for Himself through the work of Christ, the incarnate Son of God, the mediator between God and men, the redeemer, the reconciler of all things created, the skull-crushing seed of the woman. This is one of my working assumptions as I approach this text. In this study, I want to analyze Ephesians 1:7-10, seeking to do exegetical justice to it in its immediate context and then place it in its wider redemptive-historical and canonical context. The fruit of this interpretive exercise will give some warrant to the claim that the Bible is about God getting glory for Himself through what He does in the Son.

...Before we move on it is important to note that the subjective knowledge of the mystery of God's will is based on the objective coming of Christ and the implications of His coming drawn out for us by the writers of the New Testament. In other words, that which God gives us in terms of understanding His will is based on His act in Christ and the subsequent interpretation of that act by apostles and prophets and, especially for us, the writers of the New Testament. Also, the implications drawn out by the writers of the New Testament were based on previous revelation concerning Gentile inclusion. The "mystery" was new revelation in the sense of being New Testament Scripture but it was also clearer understanding of previous scriptural revelation in light of the redemptive-historical revelation of the sufferings and glory of Christ. The New Testament writers, in other words, interpreted the Old Testament in light of God's revelation in Christ.*

Richard Barcellos, Southern California Reformed Baptist Pastors' Conference Papers (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2012), pp. 68, 80.

David Murray On The Preacher

A sinner sent by the grace of God

Paul not only speaks of being saved by the grace of God, but also of being called and sent by the grace of God. "To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ" (Eph. 3:8).

This is not the place to go into detail about the "call to the ministry". Suffice to say that the preacher should have two calls—the one internal and the other external. The exact nature of these calls varies from person to person. But, in general, we can say that the internal call is a burden or longing to preach based on right motives: the desires to obey God, to edify God’s people, and to save souls. The external call is the church’s confirmation of the internal call and involves the church’s examination of the preacher’s motives, gifts, character and Christian experience.

The preacher must work to maintain a constant sense of the divine call—when preparing to preach, when preaching, and when reflecting on the results of his preaching. This will set another pendulum swinging in his heart. It will swing from humility (resulting from the knowledge that it is divine mercy not human merit that has made him a preacher), to authority (resulting from the knowledge that God has commissioned him).

A sinner supplied with the gifts of God

Not only is the preacher saved by God’s grace, and sent by God’s grace, but he is also gifted by God’s grace. A man can be gifted without being called and sent, but a man cannot be called and sent without being gifted. God supplies both the calling and the gifts to fulfill that calling.

What kind of gifts will be present in the preacher?

     a. A strong self-discipline

As the preacher has no "boss", no supervisor, or manager, he is able to do as little or as much as he desires, in whatever areas that interest him. Hence why so many lazy and undisciplined men have been attracted to the ministry. But when a man is truly called of God to the ministry, he is divinely equipped with an ability to organize and discipline himself to do his duty, even when there is no one to check up on him.

                b. A love of studying

Paul admonished the young preacher, Timothy: "Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine … Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 2:15). As the core of the preacher’s task is the study of God’s Word, God will usually bless the preacher with a love of studying.

     c. An ability to communicate

 As the preacher must not only understand the truth but also be able to communicate it clearly, God will usually give the preacher a clear mind and a clear voice, resulting in a clear message from God to men. God does not send messengers who confuse and bamboozle his people with displays of their learning—or their lack of it.

     d. A love of people

There are many preachers who love their studies, but wish they never had to come out of them! They love preparing sermons, lectures and addresses, but seem to wish that they did not need a congregation to deliver them to. The God-sent messenger loves the people God has given to him. He enjoys visiting the flock and feeding the flock.

The gifts summarized above, and others, must be sought, cultivated, stirred up and developed (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). J. W. Alexander warned: I fear none of us apprehend as we ought to do the value of the preacher’s office. Our young men do not gird themselves for it with the spirit of those who are on the eve of a great conflict; nor do they prepare as those who are to lay their hands upon the springs of the mightiest passions, and stir up to their depths the ocean of human feelings.

A sinner summoned to the bar of God

 "Preach the word!" (2 Tim. 4:2) was Paul’s last charge to Timothy and it was given in the context of the final judgement (v. 1). Paul’s whole ministry was conducted in the awesome shadow of the last day. Knowing he would one day be called to give an account of his life and ministry he said, "This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offence toward God and men" (Acts 24:16). Al Martin writes:

 Next to the presence of Christ, there is no greater companion to the minister than that of a good conscience. To have the Lord at your side and a peaceful conscience in your breast—these are the preacher’s two greatest companions.

A constant awareness of the final judgement will help us to shun ignorance, dishonesty, laziness, vanity and self-seeking; and it will make us studious, honest, energetic, sober, prayerful and faithful.*

*Murray, D. (2011). How Sermons Work (12–15). Darlington, England; Carlisle, PA: Evangelical Press.

Why the Clark / Van-Til dichotomy?

by Felipe Diez

(Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com)

 

 

 

 

Friends,

 

I do not say this lightly, but in a thought-for-thought manner, and not simply for charitable purposes, I consider Dr. Cornelius Van-Til and Dr. Gordon Clark to be among the most significant Christian thinkers of the 20th century. Not only have they both enriched my life (I read their books and form my opinions on their primary sources first and not on the words of their fans, followers, bloggers, etc) but I have been able to teach others about what they desired to be taught to the world. My parents know about them, my friends know about them, acquaintances know about them, and fellow students know about them because I like to talk about them. They are like heroes to me. I admit I have read many more of Dr. Clark's works than I have the other's, but I can notice many similarities and differences in their works. It is the same when I read the works of other Christian philosophers / apologists, they have some similarities and some differences. I even have in my possession Herman Hoeksema's book concerning the "controversy." But so what? I like them both. Can you say the same thing?

 

This blog post is about a young man named "Johnny." Johnny is into presuppositional apologetics and has stumbled on a few blog posts or videos by the fictional Mindy Collins. Mindy is a strong van-tillian and only has negative things to say about Dr. Clark. Enter Sam Roberts. Sam is a Clarkian and has very negative things to say about van-Til. Sam also has a very condescending attitude. Well, Johnny begins to dislike Dr. Clark (while not having read a single book of his) because he likes Mindy's blogs, yet when Johnny's friends ask him why he doesn't like Dr. Clark, Johnny replies with "well, Mindy (who has never read Van-til and only works about others) said so and so, and also, I don't like Sam." Does this scenario sound familiar?

 

It's a scenario I've had to witness again and again. My question to you is, why the dichotomy? Why do some folks find it necessary to base their decisons on emotional data? When I speak to folks about this, they always reference the two scholars spoken about in this blog as if they were perpetually at each others' throats (when in fact they were both gentlemen who did not have personal ills regarding the other). The scholars are long gone, and in a sense, it is their students who have perpetuated much of this misunderstanding. Some people find it perplexing that I do not speak badly of either scholar, and often out of spite, I will speak well of one scholar in the presence of people who dislike that scholar over the other, and vice versa. And there are many ways in which van-tillians misrepresent Dr. Clark and vice versa - I can catch the misrepresentations quite easily. When I speak with someone, and ask them: "Do you like Cornelius Van-Til? I am reading his "Introduction to Christian Epistemology part II." They say: "I like Gordon Clark." But notice that this is not what I asked. I was not talking about Clark or referencing Clark at all. For now, imagine that he never existed. My question to them was: "Do you like Cornelius Van-Til?" That was the question. I was not attempting to invoke the whole controversy nor was the other scholar present in my mind. But some folks simply cannot think rationally enough and, in my opinion, must get past their emotional presuppositions. When I ask: "Do you like Gordon Clark's works?" Some people say: "I'm a van-tillian." But notice that this was not referenced in the question. It was not part of the question, and I was not asking for the information provided to me. And often times, the person who disdains Clark has only read - what - 3 or 4 books? (I've read 12 so far and have many more on my shelf). People are taking the ramifications of this controversy too seriously and are going about this in the wrong manner, and many bloggers and other writers are advancing the same erroneous dichotomy. They sometimes think of me as "that odd ball who actually likes and reads both of them."

 

So Johnny, if you would, ignore Sam's attitude and Mindy's misrepresentations (fictional characters), pick up a few books by these men, not about them, and feed your mind - learn to defend the Christian faith and practice cogent and comprehensive thinking.